To think that society would not be immensely simpler were women denied the right to vote and own property

[BungeeCord]

The link to this article was originally posted in FWR but I think this paragraph (written by trans woman Robin Moira White) is so offensive and telling that it needs to be seen widely.

translucent.org.uk/a-supremely-poor-job/

"We could simplify society immensely by removing women from voting, property ownership, and working in the professions, but that would not be right."

How? How would removing women from society make for a simpler society? Is this what some people think of women? Clearly some people do think that, I didn't think that was an acceptable belief to hold in our society though.

But er…. Those were in the judgement and you said the judgement was a shit idea? So you seem to be saying transmen, transpeople and homosexuals should not have the protections laid out in the judgement, or is it only a small area of the judgement that you find a “shit idea”.

Well no, obviously it isn't.

The SC judgment found as it did because unless sex means birth biological sex, the law is incoherent and its protections no longer work for women, for homosexual people and for women with trans identities.

To wish to overturn or change this to let men get into non consenting women's spaces means you want to destroy legal rights and protections for women, homosexual people and women with trans identities, because you cannot do the one without doing the other. Did you not understand this?

I don’t agree with anything you wrote, but regardless of what you or I think of the SC judgement and its ramifications is tangential to the discussion being had on this thread, which was about the point being made in this article and the comparison being drawn to removing the voting/ property rights for women.

I'm afraid it doesn't matter whether or not you agree, that's how the law works.

The reason for White kicking off is a desire to overturn the judgment, in order for him to use women's spaces.

Which would mean removing protections in law for women, homosexual people and women with trans identities, because you cannot do one without the other.

I'm sorry, it's absolutely all one and the same thing. Do you really not understand what you're supporting?

Ah I don’t know. Last I checked we lived in a democracy where it was considered appropriate to discuss and debate the appropriateness and sense of matters of law. (That public discussion being regarded as mattering immensely).

@tandora as @TheOtherRaven says, if the SC judgement is overturned (hint it can’t be), and RMW is allowed into women’s spaces, as you support, them all those other groups lose their rights and protections. So you seem to be, saying the wish of males to enter female spaces should be of more importance than protecting those other groups. Why?

The SC decision doesn’t need to be “overturned”. However, it’s perfectly clear that the EA is out of date and parliament needs to enact better legislation. Which they certainly can do.

I object entirely to your framing of the substantive issue and consider it deeply transphobic.

No, you're still not getting it, it's not about trying to stop you discussing what you think or feel about the law - go for it, absolutely, please do - but you can't put aside how the law actually works in practice which is that to want the part overturned that White and presumably you wish to overturn has to mean by extension overturning the rights of women, homosexual people and women with trans identities. That isn't limiting your right of expression, that is the reality of how the law works that we're talking about.

To get what you want for men, you have to sacrifice the legal protections for those women, homosexual people and women with trans identities. It is not possible to change that law without destroying the protections for those other groups, that's what the judgment was about. So the question is how you feel about the removal of those protections and whether ethically they would be fair collateral damage compared to the gains for those men.

And I’m supposed to be bothered by your objection? Wht do you consider the EA out of date? It protects everybody. Or are you saying it should be amended to give sone groups more rights than others?

I can see you're very, very uncomfortable having to look directly at what you're supporting, and that you may not to this point have fully understood how very homophobic, transphobic and misogynist it actually is. I have every sympathy. It is easy to want to be kind, without realising the extent of the impact on others.

I mean this is nothing more than a load of very wrongheaded personal reasoning. But if you want to debate the merits of the SC judgement maybe start a thread about that and debate with people who want to engage with you? Thats not actually the subject of this thread or my interest in intervening.

The effect of a bit popped into the EA to fix this would still have the effect of removing the protections for women, homosexual people and women with trans identities and would make the law wholly incoherent: it would only mean the harms to those groups were made harder to defend themselves against in law. It would be in effect to remove those groups' protections where they were inconvenient to men with trans identities.

I am sorry, it's the reality of the judgment.

Evidently. Who knows what other “modernising” tweaks could be be made if the government decided to change it? The need for women to have single sex spaces when vulnerable or it’s appropriate for them to be able to participate in public life hasn’t gone away.

I like what you are trying to do here. It’s like when you try to gaslight trans people about the “reality” of their “sex”.

😉

the judgement is what it is. It was an interpretation of the wording of an act of parliament as it was written at a particular time. Badly written and out of date statutes and badly formulated legal judgements are part of living in a polis. These things have nothing to do with the laws of physics they are a product of politics and law, both of which are determined by society , open for discussion and scrutiny , and very fixable.

HTH.

Um… the only bit you got right was that the SC judgement and the EA have nothing to do with the laws of physics. And if a transperson can’t accept the reality of their sex, then they may need help to deal with that.

And if a transperson can’t accept the reality of their sex, then they may need help to deal with that.

uh huh. Keep talking. Because that is really what this is about.

Oooh I have permission to keep talking from the great one glorious @Tandora ! My year is made! 😂😂😂😂

Well yes, absolutely it's open to scrutiny and discussion, but the facts identified by the judgment were that to retain the protections for women, homosexual people and women with trans identities, sex had to mean biological birth sex throughout the act.

To change this to give men the freedoms they wish has to mean destroying the protections for those groups: the two things cannot exist at the same time. There won't be a magic way of re writing it to make it all work out, it's one or the other. You seem very uncomfortable with this reality.

How is it more simple to include some men in the female category than just agree that men are men and women are women?🤔
Robin, like a lot of men, is just trying to promote a position that favours men like him

You seem very uncomfortable with this reality.

it’s got nothing to do with reality. It’s nothing more than your very wrongheaded, personal logic, based on simplisms (that have nothing to do with actually making life simpler or better). And yes I am more than uncomfortable with it because it is deeply transphobic (and also detrimental to the rights of women, girls, gay people and all people affected by false, binary and hierarchical mandates based on simplisms about ‘sex’).

How is defining sex as biological detrimental to women, girls, homosexual people? What other definition of sex would protect all these groups?

Anyway, as enjoyable as this exchange was. I think I need to go back to concentrating on cleaning my bathroom and looking after my baby.
Ta ta.

Ooh I’d heard about the @Tandora exit and now I’ve seen One in person! Ooohh the excitement knows no bounds!!